This is actually not a mislabel problem. The reason why you are seeing evidence for exfoliation syndrome on the glaucoma page is because this is a child term of glaucoma. One thing important to note is that the evidence page always shows indirect evidence, meaning that for a specific disease we also gather all the evidence that we collect from the descendants.
By doing this we account for differences in the granularity of the annotation. So for example, you will see the same evidence displayed if you go higher up in the ontology to eye disease, where we represent that CACNA1A is relevant even though there is no direct evidence linking to that.
Let me know what you think!
That makes perfect sense. I was confused because exfoliation syndrome and glaucoma have their own EFOs and the glaucoma EFO code was taking me to the exfoliation syndrome link (which, now that I think about it, I agree is indirectly related to glaucoma). I guess at some point (this was probably discussed when I was there as well) we should try to indicate, for clarity, if this is directly or indirectly linked to the disease, for e.g. by having an additional Direct/Indirect evidence filter.
Anyways, thanks for clarifying Irene (hope you are well!)